ArticleMalaria journal2016
First evaluation of bendiocarb in experimental huts using different substrates in Madagascar.
Article in Malaria journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndoor residual spraying with insecticide is recommended for malaria control in high-transmission settings. Determination of residual activity of insecticides is essential for the selection of appropriate indoor spraying policy. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the residual effect of bendiocarb, a carbamate insecticide used in Madagascar, on different indoor surfaces in order to elaborate future vector control interventions.
methodsThe residual activity of bendiocarb was evaluated in both experimental huts and houses. Tests in experimental huts on different substrates represented a small scale-field trials. The houses IRS performed in parallel of experimental huts IRS, was done to compare semi-field results and field results. Bioassays according to the World Health Organization (WHO) standard protocol were carried out on different substrates impregnated with bendiocarb using susceptible strains of Anopheles arabiensis and Aedes albopictus.
resultsBendiocarb induced significantly high mortality in treated huts against exposed mosquito (p < 0.005) compared to untreated huts. The mortality is up to the WHO threshold of 80 % during 5 months post-treatment. Using a multivariate analysis, Ae. albopictus mortality decreased significantly from the 3rd month post-treatment. However, An. arabiensis mortality decreased significantly from the 4th month after treatment. Comparing mosquito mortality results from the mud experimental huts and the mud houses showed no significant difference regarding the persistence of bendiocarb on wall.
conclusionsCurrent data suggest variable persistence of bendiocarb according to the type of wall surfaces, highlighting the importance of testing insecticide for IRS in local context before using them in large scale. Data from this study validate also the importance of using experimental huts as representative tool to evaluate the effectiveness of an insecticide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.